Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010038662026 2026:GAU-AS:7100 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./45/2026 ON THE DEATH OF CHANDRA BARAN GHOSH, HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY 1.1: SMTI ANIMA GHOSH W/O LATE CHANDRA BARNA GHOSH R/O WARD NO. IX HAILAKANDI TOWN BATA POINT HAILAKANDI ASSAM 1.2: JAHAR GHOSH S/O LATE CHANDRA BARNA GHOSH R/O WARD NO. IX HAILAKANDI TOWN BATA POINT HAILAKANDI ASSAM 1.3: RAJAT GHOSH S/O LATE CHANDRA BARNA GHOSH R/O WARD NO. IX HAILAKANDI TOWN BATA POINT HAILAKANDI ASSAM 1.4: SMTI MILI PAUL PURKAYASTHA D/O LATE CHANDRA BARAN GHOSH C/O SHRI SUBRATA PAUL PURKAYASTHA R/O SASAN ROAD SILCHAR ASSA Page No.# 2/8 VERSUS SMTI. SHIBANI DASGUPTA AND 3 ORS. W/O SHRI BIDHAN DASGUPTA, C/O RAJA DAS, ASHAR NEER, 36, SEBADAL ROAD, PURBA PARA, P.O.- NIMATA, BELGARIA, KOLKATA-49, WEST BENGAL 2:SMTI SABITA SEN W/O LT. RANJIT KR. SEN DHARMANAGAR RAJBARI NORTH TRIPURA 3:SMTI ANITA DAS W/O SHRI SHNEHAMOY DAS R/O SIB BARI ROAD HAILAKANDI ASSAM 4:SMTI MADUMITA DEY W/O LT. NARAYAN CH. DEY R/O SIB BARI ROAD HAILAKANDI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, A R PAL,MS. S. TODI,MR H K SARMA,MR M SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I H LASKAR(R1,2,3), MR. P DAIMARY(R1,2,3),MR. P K DEKA(R1,2,3),R BORAH(R1,2,3),MR. R. KARIM(R1,2,3) Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 22.05.2026 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application for review under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the Judgment & Order dated 16.02.2026 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 261/2026, whereby the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for reconstruction was upheld. 3. Learned senior counsel for the review petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 25 of the judgment under review, which is as follows: “25. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shyamlal Agarwal Vs. Ratanlal Malviya (Dead) By Lis reported in AIR 1991 SC 353, wherein in the Apex Court in the facts of the case held that the Courts have considered relevant facts and circumstances in upholding the landlord's claim for reconstruction of the accommodation and that there is no requirement under the concerned Act that the building should have been in a dilapidated condition. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent that in the event that the new construction takes place the respondent is willing to rent out a portion Page No.# 4/8 thereof to the petitioner provided he is agreeable to pay the market rent.” 4. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner submitted that, although the aforementioned stand of the respondent was reflected in the judgment under review as above, the same does not find mention in the final order passed by the Court dismissing the civil revision petition, which is an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting a review and to pass a direction incorporating the aforementioned stand. 5. Learned Senior counsel has referred to an Order dated 24.06.2004 in C.R.P. number 65 of 2000, whereby the said Civil Revision Petition was disposed of by the High Court under certain terms and conditions agreed to by the parties, which included an agreement that the landlord shall complete the construction as expeditiously as possible and no sooner the same is complete, shall offer an equivalent area as held by the tenants as on date in the reconstructed premises which naturally will be subject to payment of fair rent by the tenant. 6. 6. It is submitted that a similar direction may be incorporated in the judgment under review, directing the respondent/landlord to rent out a portion of the newly constructed building as and when it becomes available, subject to payment of market rent by the petitioner. 7. Vehemently controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for Page No.# 5/8 the respondents submitted that the present review petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, inasmuch as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. It is submitted that, at the time of hearing when the said stand was taken by the respondent/landlord, there was no corresponding acceptance on behalf of the petitioner, and it is only when the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed that the petitioner has come up with a new plea which is wholly unamenable to be considered in a review application. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this court a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this court. However, it would suffice to refer to only one of them for the present purpose, i.e., the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Ors, reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3301, wherein it was held as follows: “16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable :- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (i1) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Page No.# 6/8 Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 : (AIR 1954 SC 526), to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275 : (2013 AIR SCW 2903). (B) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (i) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (x) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” Page No.# 7/8 9. I have given my anxious considerations to the rival submissions. It may also be noticed that the respondents have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition. 10. The perusal of the aforesaid paragraph 25 of the judgment under review would show that what was recorded therein was merely the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The said submission was to the effect that, upon completion of construction of the new building, the respondents would be agreeable to rent out a part of the premises to the petitioner, subject to payment of market rent. In other words, an offer was made in the course of hearing by one of the parties, but the same was never accepted during the course of the hearing by the petitioner's side, and the case was argued on merits by both sides and it ultimately came to be dismissed on merits, and hence, there was no scope for incorporating a direction therein incorporating the offer of the respondents adverted to hereinbefore. Doing so would amount to converting an offer, which was made by one party and not accepted by the other, into a direction of this Court, which would have been wholly impermissible in law. 11. Hence, I do not find any errors apparent on the face of the record warranting remedial action in review. As far as the Order dated 24.06.2004 passed in CRP No. 65 of 2000 is concerned, the same was apparently a consent order passed upon agreement of all parties to the case and therefore, the same Page No.# 8/8 has no relevance for the purpose of deciding the present petition. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the review petition is held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Send back the TCR. JUDGE Comparing Assistant